Abstract
Expression profiling using DNA microarrays holds great promise for a variety of research applications, including the systematic characterization of genes discovered by sequencing projects1,2. To demonstrate the general usefulness of this approach, we recently obtained expression profiles for nearly 300 Saccharomyces cerevisiae deletion mutants3. Approximately 8% of the mutants profiled exhibited chromosome-wide expression biases, leading to spurious correlations among profiles. Competitive hybridization of genomic DNA from the mutant strains and their isogenic parental wild-type strains showed they were aneuploid for whole chromosomes or chromosomal segments. Expression profile data published by several other laboratories also suggest the use of aneuploid strains. In five separate cases, the extra chromosome harboured a close homologue of the deleted gene; in two cases, a clear growth advantage for cells acquiring the extra chromosome was demonstrated. Our results have implications for interpreting whole-genome expression data, particularly from cells known to suffer genomic instability, such as malignant or immortalized cells.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Pennisi, E. Worming secrets from the C. elegans genome. Science 282, 1972–1974 (1998).
Somerville, C. & Somerville, S. Plant functional genomics. Science 285, 380–383 ( 1999).
Hughes, T.R. et al. Functional discovery via a compendium of expression profiles . Cell (in press).
DeRisi, J.L., Iyer, V.R. & Brown, P.O. Exploring the metabolic and genetic control of gene expression on a genomic scale. Science 278, 680– 686 (1997).
Marton, M.J. et al. Drug target validation and identification of secondary drug target effects using DNA microarrays. Nature Med. 4 , 1293–1301 (1998).
Winzeler, E.A. et al. Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. Science 285 , 901–906 (1999).
Lai, M.H. et al. The identification of a gene family in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae ergosterol biosynthesis pathway. Gene 140, 41–49 (1994).
Lussier, M. et al. Large scale identification of genes involved in cell surface biosynthesis and architecture in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 147, 435–450 ( 1997).
Hoyt, M.A., Totis, L. & Roberts, B.T. S. cerevisiae genes required for cell cycle arrest in response to loss of microtubule function. Cell 66, 507–517 (1991).
Schwartz, K., Richards, K. & Botstein, D. BIM1 encodes a microtubule-binding protein in yeast. Mol. Biol. Cell 8, 2677– 2691 (1997).
Holstege, F.C. et al. Dissecting the regulatory circuitry of a eukaryotic genome . Cell 95, 717–728 (1998).
Wyrick, J.J. et al. Chromosomal landscape of nucleosome-dependent gene expression and silencing in yeast. Nature 402, 418– 421 (1999).
Kal, A.J. et al. Dynamics of gene expression revealed by comparison of serial analysis of gene expression transcript profiles from yeast grown on two different carbon sources. Mol. Biol. Cell 10, 1859 –1872 (1999).
Hartwell, L.H. & Smith, D. Altered fidelity of mitotic chromosome transmission in cell cycle mutants of S. cerevisiae . Genetics 110, 381–395 (1985).
Pollack, J.R. et al. Genome-wide analysis of DNA copy-number changes using cDNA microarrays. Nature Genet. 23, 41– 46 (1999).
Wolfe, K.H. & Shields, D.C. Molecular evidence for an ancient duplication of the entire yeast genome. Nature 387, 708–713 (1997).
Smith, N.G., Knight, R. & Hurst, L.D. Vertebrate genome evolution: a slow shuffle or a big bang? Bioessays 21, 697–703 (1999).
Hoffman, C.S. & Winston, F. A ten-minute DNA preparation from yeast efficiently releases autonomous plasmids for transformation of Escherichia coli. Gene 57, 267–272 (1987).
Ferea, T.L., Botstein, D., Brown, P.O. & Rosenzweig, R.F. Systematic changes in gene expression patterns following adaptive evolution in yeast. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 9721–9726 (1999).
Galitski, T., Saldanha, A.J., Styles, C.A., Lander, E.S. & Fink, G.R. Ploidy regulation of gene expression . Science 285, 251–254 (1999).
Chu, S. et al. The transcriptional program of sporulation in budding yeast. Science 282, 699–705 ( 1998).
Spellman, P.T. et al. Comprehensive identification of cell cycle-regulated genes of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae by microarray hybridization. Mol. Biol. Cell 9, 3273–3297 (1998).
Jelinsky, S.A. & Samson, L.D. Global response of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an alkylating agent. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 1486–1491 (1999).
Johnson, A.D. Molecular mechanisms of cell-type determination in budding yeast. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 5, 552–558 (1995).
Acknowledgements
We thank C. Boone, A. Murray, F. Spencer, N. Hastie, L. Hartwell, R. Stoughton and D. Shoemaker for their comments on the manuscript; P. Paddison for discussions on the implications of aneuploidy in human cancer; and our colleagues in the academic community for making full data sets publicly available. This work was supported by Rosetta Inpharmatics, Inc.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hughes, T., Roberts, C., Dai, H. et al. Widespread aneuploidy revealed by DNA microarray expression profiling . Nat Genet 25, 333–337 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/77116
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/77116
This article is cited by
-
Consequences of gaining an extra chromosome
Chromosome Research (2023)
-
Effects of aneuploidy on cell behaviour and function
Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology (2022)
-
Synthetic negative genome screen of the GPN-loop GTPase NPA3 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Current Genetics (2022)
-
Comparing the utility of in vivo transposon mutagenesis approaches in yeast species to infer gene essentiality
Current Genetics (2020)
-
A Saccharomyces paradox: chromosomes from different species are incompatible because of anti-recombination, not because of differences in number or arrangement
Current Genetics (2020)